Nick Clegg speaks at his party's spring conference in York earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Lib Dems revolt over Clegg's refusal to cut taxes for the poorest

Lord Oakeshott and the liberal Centre Forum are demanding a cut in the National Insurance threshold, rather than another cut in income tax.

There is no coalition policy of which Nick Clegg is prouder than the increase in the personal tax allowance. Having achieved the original target of £10,000 (from a starting level of £6,475 in 2010/11) a year earlier than expected, Clegg has been pushing George Osborne to go further - and will get his wish in the Budget tomorrow. The Chancellor is likely to announce that the tax threshold will rise to £10,500 next year and perhaps even to £10,750 if he's feeling generous. Given the Lib Dems' limited success in government (no AV, no House of Lords reform, no mansion tax), Clegg is understandably keen to claim credit for a policy that voters overwhelmingly support and that David Cameron rejected as unaffordable during the first 2010 leaders' debate ("I would love to take everyone out of their first £10,000 of income tax, Nick. It's a beautiful idea, it's a lovely idea - we cannot afford it"). For Clegg, the increase due to be announced in the Budget is a step towards the Lib Dems' new target of a £12,500 tax allowance by the end of the next parliament. 

But not all in his party share his enthusiasm for continually hiking the tax threshold. By definition, as the policy continues, it becomes increasingly less progressive. The five million workers who earn below £10,000 will gain nothing from another rise, but all of those earning up to £120,000 will be better off (the personal allowance is tapered away at a rate of 50 per cent after £100,000 - a stealth tax introduced by Alistair Darling).  It is those in the second-richest decile who receive the most in cash terms from the policy (mainly due to the greater number of dual-earning households), followed by the richest tenth (who receive marginally less due to the tapering away of the allowance). As a percentage of income, it is middle-earners who gain the most, with those at the bottom gaining the least.

For these reasons, an increasing number of Lib Dems are calling for the party to support progressive alternatives to raising the tax threshold. The Centre Forum, the party's favourite think-tank, has proposed increasing the National Insurance threshold, which currently stands at £7,748, to help low-earners. As the IFS recently noted, aligning the NI threshold with the personal allowance would "cut taxes for 1.2 million workers with earnings too low to benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, would benefit only workers, and would simplify the direct tax system."

The reliably contrarian Lord Oakeshott has echoed this demand, stating that "Raising the income tax starting point to £10,000 is a great Liberal Democrat manifesto achievement but we should declare victory and move on, or we'll become victims of our own success. We've lifted 2 million out of income tax but left 1.2 million of them paying National Insurance contributions from around £7,750 a year." The Guardian reports that his concerns are shared by his political ally Vince Cable, who has also noted "the diminishing returns of the policy for the low paid." 

Other alternatives to raising the tax threshold include cutting VAT (which is paid by all and hits the poorest hardest) and raising in-work benefits such as tax credits. As the IFS noted, increasing the level at which the latter are withdrawn by 20 per cent would be "a bigger giveaway in entitlements to working families in the bottom three income deciles than the gains to that group of raising the personal allowance to £12,500, despite costing £10 billion per year less". 

But all of these measures lack the headline-grabbing potential of another cut in income tax. With the Tories considering making their own pledge to raise the personal allowance to £12,500, Clegg is determined not to relinquish ownership of the policy. But as he continues down this path, the divide between him and his party's redistributionists is one to watch. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.